| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: commitfest 2018-07 |
| Date: | 2018-06-05 22:29:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20180605222912.GA1442@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:03:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Let's keep the tech side of this simple and just do the rename as
> suggested and then we can encourage committers to review the
> smaller/older patches by providing information about the objective size
> and age of them, which will likely lead to the same result without all
> the fuss over what patch should be in what commitfest.
From a technical point of view with the CF app, it is possible to move a
patch to the "next" CF but it is not possible to choose to which commit
fest a patch is moved. I am not sure how the CF app chooses this next
CF, does it choose based on the ID number of a CF, which increases for
each new creation or based on its name? Magnus would know that, my bet
goes for the ID-based selection.. If my guess is right and that you
create a CF with a name older than an existing entry, then the whole
patch flow would be messed up. So a rename is just much more simple at
the end.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-06-05 22:38:56 | Re: commitfest 2018-07 |
| Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2018-06-05 22:26:34 | Re: Code of Conduct plan |